An Open Dialogue Regarding Forum Moderation

Discussion in 'General Gameplay Discussion' started by RadarX, Apr 10, 2015.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Kraeref Well-Known Member

    Thanks! Now I got it.
  2. Kraeref Well-Known Member

    I understand. You don't have to explain it. Though if there are limits to it it's not a freedom anymore It's a restricted speech :) People just don't see sometimes the difference. But I agree there are and should be laws that protect others from any kind of discrimination. That's where DBG moderation policy steps in. Though to stop people from critisizing policies or decisions is considered a dictatorship and censoring.

    Anyway I appologize for side tracking you. This is really for offtopic discussion. :) Thanks again for answering my question about different types of moderation.
  3. Wurm Well-Known Member

    That had nothing to do with what I asked Vain. But its all good.
  4. Mogrim Well-Known Member

    I will keep my mouth closed as I reply in a rude, sarcastic, and condescending tone.
    <3 Feldon
    Katz likes this.
  5. NickStern Active Member

    So again you contradict yourself....

    You say not to listen to rumors then confirm YOU have banned pepole for posts on third party sites.
    Since there is no way for you to control what is said on third party sites and prove that it was a violation of that third party site banning someone based on something said there opens you to possible legal action as the 2 sites are unrelated and not controlled by DBG.

    Yet with all these glaring contradictions you can not understand why some people are afraid to post and believe the worst of the actions YOU and the DBG team may take.

    I really am surprised that you are that clearly blind to the image you present.
    Brienae likes this.
  6. RadarX Community Manager

    Nick I'm honestly not sure how to respond to you anymore. This is at least the third time in this thread you've taken a statement of mine and made it into some sensational exaggeration.

    I said on some very rare occasions I have banned people for that and what you seem to have glossed over was I qualified what those instances usually are. I'm fairly comfortable saying I don't believe Feldon has used racist slurs or threatened anyone's life so why in the world would you associate these two?

    As for legal action, our Terms of Service allow us to terminate an account at will for any reason we deem. We deem the above two instances I list as good cause.

    It's apparent to me after what is probably literally dozens of posts I'm not going to change your mind on this, so I do thank you for your feedback, but I don't think there is anything else I can do for you.
  7. NickStern Active Member

    I never associated Feldon with any such thing but you just did in your comment.
    I find it interesting that no matter what you say how you contradict yourself that you can not see how these contridictions affect the image the player base has of you and the DBG Team.
    Let me be clear I never exaggerated anything I took your contradictory statement at face value and pointed out how the very contradiction negates you saying we should ignore rumors when you then confirm it happens.
    You say in the same breath not to listen to rumors then confirm that YOU do/have banned people for comments on third party sites not related to the EQ forums there is no justification for that.

    No you can not change my mind when in the same comments you confirm exactly what I have said.
  8. Nolus Well-Known Member

    In the interest of interjecting some more rational logic. Radar, if I go on a site like reddit a bit frustrated and say "That RadarX guy is such a horrible CM and he has smelly feet!" Or maybe something a bit more pointed and critical barring anything of the extreme mentioned earlier. I won't suffer any consequences here? That is maybe I was venting at a place where I could to let a little steam off. Are you going to judge me on my actions moderation wise here solely based on what I have posted here barring cases like a serious threat of some sort or disparaging remarks.
  9. Vainamoinen Well-Known Member

    No worries. I just went back to the post you had made prior to that one and assumed that's what you were referring to. I had asked a couple of questions earlier in the thread that were missed by radarX at first so I asked if he could address them and he did. I didn't immediately assume he was ignoring me.

    As for NickStern, I have no clue why anyone humours him at this point. His posts are confrontational, accusatory and often make little sense. Yes, this is quite mean of me to say. Again, I'd like to point out that I think my observations are pretty accurate and I am making an honest assessment of his posts.

    For instance: He is accusing radarX of contradicting himself by saying that banning people for comments on third party sites is proof that radarX listens to rumours. How is that proof? Can't radarX just as easily go to that 3rd party site and read the posts himself without having to rely on rumour? There is zero contradiction, yet NickStern keeps asserting that there is.
  10. Nolus Well-Known Member

    Ok, I don't know if I like RadarX or not yet. I am keeping an open mind to see how he is in the future. He was telling you truthfully there are some very extreme cases in which they take very seriously it could happen. I can't give him a hard time for that. It was said to be a rumor that Feldon posted something he got banned for on eq2wire. I don't know exactly why Feldon got banned. But I haven't heard why exactly either way. But guessing it was after some strings of removed posts that I was watching happen I would guess it was something on here.
    NickStern likes this.
  11. Loendar Member

    Though I think Nick is mostly tilting at windmills here - he is right about the contradiction.

    In the post Radar says, "Don't listen to rumors." - in this case, the rumor being proposed is that people have been banned for things said on a third party site. Essentially Radar is saying, don't believe rumors like that one - as they are false and misleading.

    In the next statement he says, "Yes, I did ban people based on things said on 3rd party sites." -- in essence, saying that the rumor isn't a rumor at all - but fact. And that only reinforces for people that maybe they SHOULD believe the rumors.

    Now - granted - the reasons for banning people (hate speech, threats) may very well be sound, but you can't have it both ways and you certainly can't state both sides of the example in one posting without being called on it.
    Pipsissiwa, NickStern and Brienae like this.
  12. Vainamoinen Well-Known Member

    Either way, radarX was directly addressing a question that stated it was based on rumours. The fact that those are rumours in Feldon's case does not mean that he is saying he has never banned someone based on 3rd party posts. He is specifically addressing the rumours around Feldon's case.

    Nick is more than just being Don Quixote here, he is being Rosencrantz or Guildenstern.
    NickStern and Moonpanther like this.
  13. Loendar Member

    We'll have to agree to disagree here.

    The example given was specific to Feldon but the general core is that it was a statement made on a 3rd party site. Radar acknowledges that he HAS banned people from the forum/game based on 3rd party site posts. Granted he said he didn't do that to Feldon but that doesn't invalidate the heart of the rumor - that it has happened.
  14. RadarX Community Manager

    I'll further qualify my statement and say to my knowledge this has not happened ever on EQ2.
  15. Vainamoinen Well-Known Member

    I'm more than happy to do so, but let me try to clarify why I am disagreeing with you.

    This was the first bit of Prayos' post and now for the first bit of RadarX's post:
    Then Prayos went on with:
    which was responded to with:
    I don't want to belabour the point, but it doesn't seem intuitive to me to make a leap in logic any other direction that what I have stated.

    That would be a shame and I would campaign on your behalf if such an injustice took place.
    Wanderingbat likes this.
  16. Rotherian Well-Known Member

    If we really want to get down to brass tacks, in the US, the amendment to the US constitution that grants, among other things, the freedom of speech merely states the following:

    So all it really means is that the US Congress can't make any laws that take away a person's right to free speech. It doesn't prevent private entities* or subordinate governments (such as state governments, or local governments) from doing so (although most, if not all, state constitutions have a similar provision pertaining to the state legislature).

    The specific rumor that was asked about is this:

    To which, RadarX replied this:

    Then he stated this:

    That portion of his post discusses a few incidents where things, which were not the subject of the aforementioned rumor, posted on an external site resulted in that person having their account suspended.

    Then NS conflated the account suspension discussion with the subject of the rumor mentioned by Prayos. However, up to this point, nobody** has mentioned the existence of a rumor mentioning account bans for remarks on external sites in general terms. The only rumor that I've seen discussed did not refer to account bans in general, but instead referred specifically to the banning of Feldon.

    Edit: Ninja'd by Vainamoinen.

    * Although private entities generally don't have lawmaking bodies, they do promulgate rules - and those rules can restrict the freedom of speech.
    ** At least nobody that I've seen.
    Moonpanther likes this.
  17. Loendar Member

    Fair enough.

    Thank you for the clarification.
  18. Katz Well-Known Member

    I think that a limit would only be useful in some types of threads. For example, a thread such as the duck mount thread contains a lot of banter. It wouldn't benefit from a 3 post limit. A thread discussing the lore of EQ2 would not benefit from it. I'm sure that I could think of other types of threads that wouldn't benefit from it.
    Kraeref likes this.
  19. Jeeshman Member

    I hate to wade into the middle of this, but that isn't what he said. He said "For actions outside the forums." He never said it was for statements made on 3rd party websites. In-game threats would constitute actions outside the forums. A developer telling Radar that so-and-so sent a pm threatening his life would constitute an action outside the forums. Somebody approaching a dev at FanFaire and calling him a racial slur would constitute an action outside the forums. I don't know why people jumped to the conclusion that Radar was talking specifically about 3rd party website posts.
    Moonpanther likes this.
  20. Rotherian Well-Known Member

    Good point. I didn't even consider the in-game or at an external event (such as Fan Faire or GDC) angles, but you are correct about the term he used and its applicability. WTG! :) (I mean that sincerely, not sarcastically.)
    Jeeshman and Moonpanther like this.
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.